The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-06-09


ness Lanes dispositions, because he was
in attendance at the term of the court.
The court instructed the jury if they must
believe from the evidence thatJ. W. Sheek
was the actual owner of the property in
order to subject it to appellants debt.
This was set down as error by the appel
lants. The charge they asked for related
more to the transfer from Lane than the
bill of sale, and the transfer was not put
in issue, but it raises the question of
fraud on the transfer by the bill of sale.
A consideration of the facts of the case
shows that the debt of 1896 was bona fide,
and the transfer was not made to hinder,
delay, ETC., the creditors. The transaction
was like all other pledges, and the rela-
tionship of the parties was " not
sufficient of itself to show frand. The
payment of the balance back to
j. w. Sheek could not effect G. w. Sheek's
rights, because the latter's only connec-
ton with the affair was to collect his
debt. The evidence so clearly and fully
showed the title in G. w. Sheek that no
other verdict could be given. The juGg-
ment was affirmed.
c. W. Baldridge ct al VS.. A:F. Penland;
appeal from Coleman county. Opinion
by Stayton, A. j.
This was a suit by a retail liquor dealer
against the estate of Thomas Hays, de
ceased. 1t was appealed Ly appellee
from the probate court and by appel
liant from the district court.
| The questions raised as to the appeal
Of ha tronsnri nt
ETC., are not we'll taken.
The account rendered was taken from
appellee's books, which, latter were after
wards destroyed by fire, and shows charges
such as "to bar for billiards and drinks,
ITO games and drinds." There was also
a charge of corn and money loaned. The
clerks who made part of the entries testi-
fed to their correctness, and appellee
testified to those he made.
In introducing bridesmaids &C
count several thugs are necessary
before such books are admissible. The
items must be shown to have been made
from day to day, and must relate to the
business of the dealer; must show with
reasonable certainty what is the basis OF
the charge; must be regular on their face
The dealer should be required to evidence
of fair dealing, etc. In this case, the
items are not shown to have been made
contemporaneously with their purchase
"Games," corn and lending money wal
not the business of the dealer. The
charges for different items do not show
what each were for. Some entries show
balances for drinks" ETC., showing
some payments to have beer
made. That copies from books may be
received, there is no question, but it mus
be shown that the books were so kept al
to render them admissible if produced
We do not think the proof justified thu
admission of any portion of the copy o
the account, and for the error in admit
ting it the Judgment of the district cour
is reversed and the cause remanded.
Hord d. Dignowity VS.. Placido Olivarri
from Bexar county. Opinion by Stayton
j.
Appellee claims the land in controvers
under the King survey, made in 1871; tn
appellants claim through a patent Il
themselves made in 1888.
The case presents only a question o
boundary. Running the lines of tn
King survey in accordance with the line
and corners of the Owen, an older survey
which are we'll marked, the land in contro
versy is not inclnded in the King survey
But the appellee claims that this throw
the King survey too far west.
The King grant, in order to include tn
land in controversy, must be started fror
corner of the Husman survey made i
1885, but appellee claims to have bough
this part of the King survey in 1876;
when he had surveyor to fl
the lines. When appellants wer
o seeking to locate the land in cor
troversy they applied to appellee for in
them to Ortiz, who he said knew abou
to be. Both the Owen and King survey
the corners and Ortiz pointed out tn
the corners where appellants claim ther
y were made by the same surveyor.
y 1t is evident from appellee's evidenc
that his surveyor, (Girard), disregarde
e old corners and attempted to make then
where he though they should be placed.
From the evidence we believe that tn
u King survey is where appellants clair
y it to be, and the judgment shoul
;, have been for the appellants, and it wi
, therefore be reversed and remanded ]
their favor.
: John G. Caddell ct al. VS.. j. l.. Wallac
y ct al. Appeal from Bell county; aflirme
. by agreement
= w. r. johnson g. Co. VS.. Blanks, Walk,
% 81 Co. From Caldwell county; affirme
y d. L. Boman VS.. r. l.. Parker ct q
D From Grayson county; affirmed.
Annie Wheeler vs, John Barton. Fro
Runnells county; certificate for affirmanC
- : dismissed.
5,